Filed: Mar. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST (Doc. 112.) ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . I. BACKGROUND C. Dwayne Gilmore ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on Marc
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST (Doc. 112.) ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . I. BACKGROUND C. Dwayne Gilmore ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on March..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST (Doc. 112.)
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
C. Dwayne Gilmore ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on March 8, 2013, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) C. Lockard, C/O C. Lopez, C/O J. Hightower, and C/O J. J. Torres for excessive force, and against defendant C/O J. J. Torres for denial of adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 12.)
On April 25, 2014, the Court issued a scheduling order establishing pretrial deadlines in this action, including a deadline of December 25, 2014 to complete discovery, and deadline of March 5, 2015 to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 36.) These deadlines have now expired.
On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to inquire whether Defendants would be interested in settling this case. (Doc. 112.) Plaintiff asserts that he has made multiple settlement offers but has not received any response. By this order, Plaintiff's request shall be granted.
II. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES
The Court is able to refer cases for mediation before a participating United States Magistrate Judge. Settlement conferences are ordinarily held in person at the Court or at a prison in the Eastern District of California. Defendants shall notify the Court whether they believe, in good faith, that settlement in this case is a possibility and whether they are interested in having a settlement conference scheduled by the Court.2
Defendants' counsel shall also notify the Court whether there are security concerns that would prohibit scheduling a settlement conference. If security concerns exist, counsel shall notify the Court whether those concerns can be adequately addressed if Plaintiff is transferred for settlement only and then returned to prison for housing.
II. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion filed on March 9, 2015, is GRANTED; and
2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file a written response to this order.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
